His study made use of deception
in having participants think that the study was about learning when in
fact it was about obedience to authority. The argument stands that without
deception the phenomena could not be completely understood, thus for the
sake of science it is acceptable.

More importantly as seen from
viewing the original movie, the participants underwent severe stress
and strain in this study as they had thought they had seriously hurt
and possibly even killed someone else by delivering high voltage shocks
to a weak heart.

Ewen
Cameron carried out studies funded by the American CIA at the Allan
Memorial Institute in Montréal during the 1950s and 1960s. He used
ECT and LSD to re-programme people, largely wiping
out their previous memories and sense of self in the name of (American)
national defense and scientific progress. see
video controlling the mind.

Deception has come to
be an important part of psychological research. Initially single blind
studies were done to eliminate the possibility of bias in the results.
If the participants knew that they were or were not getting some kind of
treatment (drug, social condition, ...) then they might act in accordance
with expectations and thus not provide accurate data.

The double-blind study was
later devised to remove experimenter bias where the experimenter may unknowingly
affect the behaviour or the participants and thus the data. As a result
deception of participants (and sometimes experimenters) has been deemed
essential to the science.

Examples are given in the
text where the true nature of the study is not known, where people are
led to believe they will get shocked (Schacter's study on anxiety &
affiliation), or the fake results that indicate some did much more poorly
on a test (e.g., IQ) than actually had.Alternatives to Deception?

Is it possible to carryout
studies without the use of deception?

Cozby suggests several possibilities:
Role-playing to pretend one is in a challenging situation rather
than actually in that situation.

Simulation studies where
the acting gets a little more serious and real-life like. Here people may
take their roles very seriously and cause psychological or physical harm
to others in the simulation.

E.g., Zimbardo's Stanford
Prison Experiment that had to be stopped after six days due the stress
and strain is caused.Honest Experiments can
be done where complete disclosure of the purpose of the research is made
prior to being carried out. Secondly one can develop educational programmes
to change behaviour and investigate the effect of the programme vs. none.Thirdly, can make use of 'quasi-experiments"
where naturally occurring phenomena (disasters) can be observed as they
unfold.

Informed Consent has
come to be a standard in the practice of psychological research. Typically
individuals must read and sign a release that they have been informed
of the general nature of the study and that they may voluntarily withdraw
from the study at any time. For people below age of consent, parents or
guardians must sign the release. Example

Recently the consent of not
only individuals who participate in studies is needed, but also the consent
of the institution or NGO through which researchers might contact
people is needed. E.g.

This is particularly true for
dealing with special populations, such as school children, prisoners, mental
health patients, etc. Coercion?

Debriefing is also seen
as an essential part of the practice of psychology where the actual or
more detailed information about the study and or the participant's contributions
is revealed.

Sometimes if people have been
through stressful experiences (or asked to relive or report them) counselling
may be offered.

Follow-up information is also
expected in many (or all) cases where information on how to find the results
is included in the consent form or given during debriefing. Group meetings
are sometimes made where the results are "given back" to the participants
and their communities at a special forum.

Privacy and Confidentiality

As indicated on the consent
form, complete anonymity is expected where the responses from any given
participant will not be identified by name or any other way that will lead
others to know their identity.

The use of participant code
numbers serves this purpose (also to remove experimenter bias) where only
the participant knows both the name and the code number. They are asked
to retain the code number for later identification, should the participant
be interested in knowing their responses.

Formulation
ofEthical
Principles & Guidelines

History
From Animals to the Insane & "Moronic'

Animal Research in the post
war era had been influenced by the 1947 Nuremberg code to avoid atrocities
carried out by the Nazis in the name of science.

Red Deer
Alberta Canadian Psychologist John MacEacheran was instrumental in
the "rubber stamping" of sterilization orders for "mental defectives" and
"morons" in the name of human betterment.

Development
of GuidelinesAPA
(See Cozby) built from the Nuremberg guidelines, Americans developed
a code of ethics for psychologists.

Planning ResearchResponsibilityCompliance with Law and StandardsInstitutional ApprovalInformed ConsentDeception in ResearchSharing and Utilizing DataMinimizing InvasivenessProviding informationHonoring Commitments

Dunbar (1998) - Post WWII tried
to develop 'professional ethics,' did not really work, . . . later in 1969
established a Joint Committee (of scientific and professional Affairs)

1975 Adopted the APA "Ten Principles"
for the conduct of research with human subject with no revisions. Canadians
soon realised that the social and cultural context of Canada was different,
requiring different guidelines.

1987 - Canadian Code of
Ethics for Psychologists was developed with a movement towards a "peaceful
approach to the resolution of differences between psychologists and other
groups concerning definitions of quality care and appropriate scientific
conduct" (p. 183)

The
CPA Code: Four Principles

Principle I: Respect for
the Dignity of Persons. This principle, with its emphasis on moral
rights, generally should be given the highest weight, except in circumstances
in which there is a clear and imminent danger to the physical safety of
any person.

Principle II: Responsible
Caring. This principle generally should be given the second highest
weight. Responsible caring requires competence and should be carried out
only in ways that respect the dignity of persons.

Principle III: Integrity
in Relationships. This principle generally should be given the third
highest weight. Psychologists are expected to demonstrate the highest integrity
in all of their relationships. However, in rare circumstances, values such
as openness and straightforwardness might need to be subordinated to the
values contained in the Principles of Respect for the Dignity of Persons
and Responsible Caring.

Principle IV: Responsibility
to Society. This principle generally should be given the lowest weight
of the four principles when it conflicts with one or more of them. Although
it is necessary and important to consider responsibility to society in
every ethical decision, adherence to this principle must be subject to
and guided by Respect for the Dignity of Persons, Responsible Caring, and
Integrity in Relationships.

When a personís welfare appears
to conflict with benefits to society, it is often possible to find ways
of working for the benefit of society that do not violate respect and responsible
caring for the person. However, if this is not possible, the dignity and
well-being of a person should not be sacrificed to a vision of the greater
good of society, and greater weight must be given to respect and responsible
caring for the person.

Even with the above ordering
of the principles, psychologists will be faced with ethical dilemmas that
are difficult to resolve. In these circumstances, psychologists are expected
to engage in an ethical decision-making process that is explicit enough
to bear public scrutiny.

In some cases, resolution might
be a matter of personal conscience. However, decisions of personal
conscience are also expected to be the result of a decision-making process
that is based on a reasonably coherent set of ethical principles and that
can bear public scrutiny.

If the psychologist can demonstrate
that every reasonable effort was made to apply the ethical principles of
this Code and resolution of the conflict has had to depend on the personal
conscience of the psychologist, such a psychologist would be deemed to
have followed this Code.

Critique & Commentary
on CPA Code

Sinclair (1998) identifies
nine unique features to the code:

1) setting
objectives based
upon a critical analysis of the international and interdisciplinary literature
on codes of ethics.

2) inclusion
of an overriding ethic of a contract with society

3) use
of an empirical methodology in developing the code

4) organisation
of the code around ethical principles

5) differential
weighting of the four ethical principles

6) inclusion
of a model for ethical decisions making

7) inclusion
of the role of personal conscience

8) inclusion
of both minimal and idealised standards

9) presentation
of the code as an umbrella document

O'Neil (1998) suggests that
the code leads to better teaching of ethics due to the fact that it is
an "overriding principle" approach that applies universal (Kantian) rules
with a sensitivity to context. In contrast, the "moral Dilemmas" approach
leads to situations of compromise between competing 'legitimate' rules.

Stark (1998) identifies it
as a "best practice" model that focuses on principles, values & standards
not a "worst practice" model that focuses on rules, regulations & proscriptions
/ prescriptions.

Thus we can extend it to other
areas / disciplines and bring about change through external standards and
references.

However,
the interpretation and application is unclear ... what does dignity, integrity
& quality of research mean?

She also
recognises that right to withdraw appears to end when the data has been
collected (i.e., Nuchanalth blood)

Peer reviewis
it ethical? what about "network nepotism", "gate keeping" and possible
theft of ideas?

Ethics Review Board / Committee
(ERB)Considers
risk to participants and usually makes a cost-benefit or compassion. Is
this ethical? What about compassion? or other forms of ethics that are
non-utilitarian?(Pettifor, 1996)

References

Dunbar, J. (1998). A critical
history of CPA's various codes of ethics for psychologists (1939-1986).
Canadian psychology, 39, 177-186.